Monk is Booker with less ability to get to the rim. Jackson's jumper is super iffy. Smith has the hype because he can jump, and he's good, but.....let's actually see his productivity before we stamp him as a perennial allstar, lol.
Can we watch 82 games first? so damn reactionary, these days, peoples

Lonzo is certainly a not ready now player; for starters his body isn't
ready at all for the NBA grind yet. Still he's probably the right pick for
the future. I do think the Lakers will need a Starter, Lonzo will spend time on and off the IR as he gets manhandled, at first, by the competition.

Lonzo is certainly a not ready now player; for starters his body isn't
ready at all for the NBA grind yet. Still he's probably the right pick for
the future. I do think the Lakers will need a Starter, Lonzo will spend time on and off the IR as he gets manhandled, at first, by the competition.

I think 2014 they did fine - how they got Clarkson, made a solid pick with Randle at 7. But they also missed out on Lavine

I don't know if I feel like I can say they nailed the 2016 draft, it's too early. I do prefer Murray and probably Brown to Ingram, at Zubac's spot I think they got a contributor but there's a few modern NBA guys picked after him I might wish we had instead... Great 2015 draft, and nearly perfect 2017 draft though_________________Kyle Kuzma

I think 2014 they did fine - how they got Clarkson, made a solid pick with Randle at 7. But they also missed out on Lavine

I don't know if I feel like I can say they nailed the 2016 draft, it's too early. I do prefer Murray and probably Brown to Ingram, at Zubac's spot I think they got a contributor but there's a few modern NBA guys picked after him I might wish we had instead... Great 2015 draft, and nearly perfect 2017 draft though

What has LaVine actually done? He arguably got traded because he didn't have a great net effect in Minny despite Wiggins and KAT being on the team, and I even liked LaVine a lot in that draft, and got more than my share of criticism for wanting him at 7 when I was writing for LSL and here.

Murray? We had DAR. Coming out of the NCAA, it was Ingram who was hot behind the arc, among the leaders at the NCAA level with Iso PPP, and had much better physical tools. In fact, it's a bit funny. We get on BI's case for not having blow by ability off the dribble. Murray doesn't have much of that either. The difference is just the shot._________________Resident Car Nut.
Jarrett Culver, Ky Bowman, Jontay Porter, Bruno Fernando, Shamorie Ponds, Miye Oni, Jalen Hudson, PJ Washington, Matisse Thybulle, Cam Johnson, Carson Edwards, Lugentz Dort, Admiral Schofieldhttp://bball-index.com/team/lal/

Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2017 6:35 am Post subject: Re: Will the FO get it right in the NBA draft.

JrR31 wrote:

FFS get it right.

We passed up on Monk, Jackson and Dennis Smith Jr.

For BALL. I have a feelin the lavar persuasion had something to do with it.

Magic was sold.

Do not get me wrong Lonzo is going to be a niiiiice player in 1 or 2 years.

But there were players in the draft that would make an immediate impact.

Lakers needs to step up their game in the draft..It was a deep draft and

they should have done their homework instead of listening to LAVAR.

Agree?

I wasn't sure if you were serious. If you are, then NO I don't agree. Like so many, you love the individual talents of those individuals. I do too. Ball doesn't play defense as well as Jackson. He doesn't look like he's gliding in the are like DSjr. He doesn't shoot the hell out of the ball like Monk.

But guess what he has that they don't? The ability on any given night to display a little of each of those areas, while doing what they can't, or don't: to make his team better.

I think 2014 they did fine - how they got Clarkson, made a solid pick with Randle at 7. But they also missed out on Lavine

I don't know if I feel like I can say they nailed the 2016 draft, it's too early. I do prefer Murray and probably Brown to Ingram, at Zubac's spot I think they got a contributor but there's a few modern NBA guys picked after him I might wish we had instead... Great 2015 draft, and nearly perfect 2017 draft though

What has LaVine actually done? He arguably got traded because he didn't have a great net effect in Minny despite Wiggins and KAT being on the team, and I even liked LaVine a lot in that draft, and got more than my share of criticism for wanting him at 7 when I was writing for LSL and here.

Murray? We had DAR. Coming out of the NCAA, it was Ingram who was hot behind the arc, among the leaders at the NCAA level with Iso PPP, and had much better physical tools. In fact, it's a bit funny. We get on BI's case for not having blow by ability off the dribble. Murray doesn't have much of that either. The difference is just the shot.

What has Randle actually done? As much as I root for him, it's not like he's had a great net effect on games either, perhaps a reason why Luke (a year too late anyway) is giving Nance a shot to start. So if we had our choice between two prospects who don't impact much winning, I'll pick the guy who can at least put up 18-20 a night. I kind of like gunners though, so maybe it's my personal preference shining through.

Regarding Murray - for me it just looks like it's more realistic for him to reach his ceiling, or something close to it, than Ingram. I'm also looking back on the draft and judging it based on what we know now, not at the time.

Knowing what we did at the time, Lakers killed the draft. Knowing what we know now? I think they made some good picks most of the time, but not always the best one._________________Kyle Kuzma

With LaVine, you know he's an elite athlete and near 40% shooter, but based on play, it's not much different than say, a much more efficient Clarkson.

At least with Randle, there's advantages he has that most other PFs don't have. The improvements have been there with midrange game, passing, and this season it's a bit of conditioning, interior defense, and 3pt. shot. Not a leap, but it's all there.

I have a long reach of patience for the Lakers crop. Much less for Randle, because I do expect a certain level of results considering he's among the most experienced of the "new kids."

Also, I'm not completely basing BPA on 100% NBA production. Need to consider the context of the draft at the time and the productivity of the player.

For a project player, Randle is a double double type off the bench with passing ability. We haven't had that since Odom. Just, his style of play isn't as sexy because he doesn't have Odom's wingspan/reach/height.

I definitely had my list of players as alternatives to Randle (like how much I "overrated" Rodney Hood and Zach LaVine, but could have been so much worse.

The Lakers have drafted ridiculously well in recent years. They passed on the consensus pick in Okafor for Russell. They got Clarkson as #46 pick they bought. Picked up Nance at #27. Ball, Ingram, Randle were kind of no brainer picks for where they went. But they picked up Zubac at #32, Kuzma at #27.

Maybe it is just me but i think the young Lakers are going to surprise some people this year. The most surprised being some Laker fans.

These young players are still young. Not sure why some expect 19 and 20 year olds to light the league up. These young guys are still growing into their bodies and learning how to transition their games to the NBA.

This is the first year the responsibilities of the team is theirs. The past couple the team focused on the KFT and last year the ISO chucking of Williams and Young and a coaching and system change.

Randle is a double-double threat every night. Ingram is a solid overall role player that needs to settle down let the game come to him instead of forcing the issue so much. Ball may need to grow into the role but his overall court awareness and contributions will make him a triple double potential all season long. Not nightly, but every so often to remind us of just how good he can become.

Lakers have drafted well. Have some patience and let these guys grow up a bit. And this does not even include all the late 1st or 2nd rounders that have shown they can contribute in key back-up roles.

I have no issue with what the FO has done. Cherry picking "missed" draft picks with the luxury of hindsight does not change that for me.

The Lakers have drafted ridiculously well in recent years. They passed on the consensus pick in Okafor for Russell. They got Clarkson as #46 pick they bought. Picked up Nance at #27. Ball, Ingram, Randle were kind of no brainer picks for where they went. But they picked up Zubac at #32, Kuzma at #27.

Agreed. This is like the 80's Laker drafting where steals/value were found late 1st/2nd round anyway.